Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 261 posts

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#251

Post by ashoeafoot »

cloverich wrote: post #68
bobxmax wrote: post #3

> Tahlequah is using much of her energy to cling to the dead calf, which weighs about 300 pounds, and she is unable to forage for food, scientists said during a news briefing on Thursday. They said that her closely knit pod was supporting her. Other female orcas, especially her sister, have been observed to be consistently at her side. Utterly tragic. It's also singularly evil the devastation humans have brought to s…

I always have mixed feelings about this. It's sad. But how is her pod supporting her exactly? Are they bringing her food? If so is that food the dead offspring of other animals? I feel these kinds of stories often have a kind of selective empathy for the focused animal. Ultimately nature is extraordinarily cruel absent humans; imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.

every flower throws shade on another flower and that war we call peaceful nature.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#252

Post by wruza »

realce wrote: post #190
wruza wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they? It’s city dwellers who never seen prey and feel guilt. Regular hunters just skin the carcass and think where to store it. Guilt is a social emotion that leaks into areas which are not clearly separated in an experiencing mind.

> do they? Yes, it's plainly obvious that some people feel some guilt for eating meat. Regular hunters != industrial-level slaughtering. There are plenty of "regular hunters" who only eat meat they kill themselves. This is like saying if I cut down a single tree on my property I should also support the clear-cutting of the rainforest.

Rainforest is not a good analogy, imo. It presumably is an important part of an ecosystem and also sort of a nature’s museum. Farm animals are absolutely synthetic and barely play any positive role in ecology. So if you cut a single farm animal, I don’t see why 8 billion others shouldn’t do that or should feel bad doing it.

All that said believing no animals should get slaughtered. If we do it to some, could as well do to many. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42642138 tld: I don’t believe in reducing numbers, because the reduced numbers mean nothing to the animal being slaughtered.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#253

Post by aziaziazi »

bamboozled wrote: post #229
aziaziazi wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do It Yourself! You can beat milk price: You already got the oat. Got a blender? Grind those little flakes with water and a spoon of your favorite oil. Et voilà ! Pro tips: - filter for extra smoothness but no need if you intent to mix with whole oat flakes - 1h in the fridge and mix again for double extra smoothness - pinch of salt or cinnamon or cacao… yummi - bored of oat? Check your supermarket shelf for other id…

Doesn't milk contain protein ? Do oats contain the same amount of protein?

Quick search says milk contains twice protein as oat milk, and moreover more complete one. However for protein intake I would recommend soy products that are super healthy, cheap and contains fibers. The only plant milk I drink is a dip in my morning beverage and for cooking cakes.

But if you’re protein intake comes substantially from milk, indeed you should consider that.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#254

Post by yesfitz »

aziaziazi wrote: post #223
yesfitz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect. Vegans absolutely define themselves by not consuming any animal products, myself included. "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, hum…

(My current egg consumption is ~4/year) Thanks for sharing that thought. I strongly adhere to the vegan society definition. I think "as far as is possible and practicable" should be followed by "and beneficial to the overall goal", which is obvious but would make the phrase too cumbersome. Let me share my situation with eggs: in the family I’m the one that leaded the shift, from flexitarian to vegetarian to (99%) veg…

If the muslim, altruist, and monagamist from your example knowingly continue a behavior that is antithetical to the definitions of their stated identities then they are not a muslim, altruist, and monagamist. They may like to be or strive to be, and they can change, but they aren't right now. They should be excluded from the definitions.

You're right in identifying pet food and unknown ingredients as grey areas. "Practical and practicable" provides a tremendous amount of grey area. However, knowingly consuming animal products when there's an alternative is not a grey area. It is antithetical to veganism.

99% vegan is 99% better than the alternative, and that's undeniably great. I'm pursuing this so that people reading our conversation are not confused about what veganism is.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#255

Post by Apocryphon »

renewiltord wrote: post #181
pavel_lishin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also hope you never experience being filleted and cooked.

You and me, brother. I pray this every day. But I’m still gonna eat the fish, and may the day never come that our roles are reversed.

You’re admitting to eating orca meat? That’s a serious violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and bears investigation if true.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#256

Post by Apocryphon »

renewiltord wrote: post #224
Der_Einzige wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Many of those in india will eat Chicken - but not beef. The view of seeing most as either "meat eaters" or "vegetarians" or "vegans" is very "eurocentric"

Sure sure, if they are upset about the neurotic whale for religious reasons it doesn’t matter what chickens they eat. I’m happy to accept that’s why they’re upset. I personally don’t care that much about a cow with intergenerational trauma.

You seem to be the most upset commentator in this entire thread. Perhaps you should not have a “cow”, as they say.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#257

Post by Shorel »

sitkack wrote: post #213
Shorel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really common to 'animals' in general, for example reptiles only have the very basic instincts of eat, reproduce, fight. Insects don't have emotions, they barely have hyper specialized sensors as brains. However, emotions efficiently direct behaviours in mammals. They enact immediate and persistent responses. We can say without much doubt that emotions in mammals are similar to our own emotions. The big unknowns…

How do you know insects don’t have emotions? Bees have been shown playing. Spiders have REM sleep.

Because there is not a limbic system on insect's brains. It is just too small.

What does REM sleep have to do with emotions? REM sleep is retraining of the brain over the experiences of the previous day. It is a pure intellectual activity, it doesn't need emotions.

In fact, emotions are not an emergent feature of brains just by themselves. They require parts of the brain specifically dedicated to emotions. Like a limbic system.

As I said, Octopuses can have something like a limbic system, with their big complex brains.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#258

Post by samuelbalogh »

throwaway3287 wrote: post #165
addicted wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ironic how accepted vegetarians, who have a dietary preference, are in society, and how hated vegans, who have an ethical argument against unnecessary killing of sentient animals, are in society. I only turned vegan a couple of years ago as something clicked and I was able to make the connection between the food I was eating and the animals who were being killed, almost certainly unnecessarily, for that food. Bu…

The problem with veganism is that, unless you grow your own food, it does not change the fact that an immense amount of pain and suffering is inflicted on other beings in the production and transportation of the food you eat. It's pure virtue signaling. If they genuinely cared about minimizing suffering, they'd be Jains, not vegans.

Veganism is about reducing suffering as much as practical and possible. Some people (you included) have a problem with that and reject it altogether because of cognitive biases.

Yes there are crop death and suffering due to veganism. A plant based diet however reduces this by about 75%.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#259

Post by samuelbalogh »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #9
ridgeguy wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientist M. Temple Grandin is known for her great contributions in the field of mitigating pre-slaughter animal panic. She is autistic. Her methodology included walking the chutes used to direct cattle to slaughter and working out in great detaiL mods that would reduce their stress. I've heard her interviewed a few times. She's extraordinary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin

[flagged]

Church - it's rare to read a sane comment like this on HN.

The world we constructed is pure hell for around 80 billion animals.

Re: Orca that carried dead calf for weeks appears to be in mourning again

#260

Post by troyvit »

mrguyorama wrote: post #215
troyvit wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what drives me crazy about oat milk. Oats grow everywhere. Almonds, on the other hand, take a gallon of water per almond to make[1]. Despite this, at my store anyway, almond milk is about $2.89/half gallon while oat milk is at least $4/half gallon. What in our economy makes this feasible? [1] https://bastyr.edu/about/news/ugly-truth-about-almonds

>What in our economy makes this feasible? What do you mean "feasible"? It's profitable to sell something for more than it costs to make. If the only companies that offer Oat milk for sale price it at $4 a gallon, that's the price you have to pay to get it. Meanwhile there are laws around the pricing of Milk, and in my neck of the woods that includes a MINIMUM price. People wave their hands like "the market" is magic.…

I mean maybe you're right. Maybe people are like, "Oat milk is so different than almond milk that I am going to pay twice the price." I'm like uhhh it's white, vegan, and I can dunk a cookie in it. I'll buy what's cheaper.
Post reply on HN